Systematic Manipulation of the Light-Harvesting Properties for Tridentate Cyclometalated Ruthenium(II) Complexes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The response of the metal-to-ligand charge-transfer (MLCT) band to variability in terminal substituents within a related set of tridentate polypyridyl and cyclometalated Ru(II) complexes is reported. These complexes are formulated as [Ru(tpy-R(1))(tpy-R(2))](PF(6))(2) (1-6; tpy = 2,2':6',2''-terpyridine; R(1) = -H, -2-furyl, or -OMe; R(2) = -H, -2-furyl, or -CO(2)H) and [Ru(tpy-R(2))(dpb-R(1))]PF(6) (7-10; Hdpb = 1,3-di(pyridin-2-yl)benzene; R(2) = -H or -2-furyl; R(1) = -H or -OMe). Absorption spectra for the [Ru(tpy-R(1))(tpy-R(2))](2+) series highlight the sensitivity of the MLCT band to the indicated substituents at the 4' position of one or both tpy ligands (e.g., a bathochromic shift up to 24 nm coupled with a 2-fold increase in absorption intensity). Similar observations are made for the [Ru(tpy-R(2))(dpb-R(1))](+) series, where a single Ru-N dative bond is replaced by a Ru-C sigma-bond to form a cyclometalated complex. The reduced symmetry at the metal center within this series results in a broadening of the lowest-energy MLCT band, while an additional set of transitions at higher energies emerges that involves an excited state localized on the cyclometalating ligand. These MLCT transitions collectively render a broad absorption envelope of substantial intensity at wavelengths longer than ca. 525 nm. Optimal results are obtained for compound 10 (R(1) = -OMe; R(2) = -2-furyl), where a strong electron-donating group is situated para to the Ru-C bond (lambda(max) = 523 nm; epsilon = 2.6 x 10(4) M(-1) cm(-1)). This approach imparts substantial polarization within the molecule, which should benefit excited-state electron-transfer reactions for photosensitizing applications (e.g., dye-sensitized solar cells). Spectroscopic data are corroborated by electrochemical and TD-DFT measurements for all compounds.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".